That template looks really good in combination with <ref> tags, and the full {{cite book}} template in the references. It has to be done correctly, and well though. The divisions page could really use it. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The linking is quite interesting. Once they get the cite_book, cite_journal, template working we should switch over. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind. I was particularly pleased with the one regarding 'singular they,' as it has always annoyed me that it hasn't been adopted officially. Peter Deer (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have thought this for a long time. I want to get to the point where language facilitates rather than inhibits communication.

I personally love the english language and I consider myself to be particularly good at it (to the point of hubris, I do not doubt) but there are so many useless letters and rules and annoying homonyms that just make it harder to learn, even to native speakers. It's so convoluted that I am not even sure that the previous sentence was correct english.

Several things I think are important regarding a universal language.

A practical alphabet that is conducive to fast writing and easy differentiation.

A comprehensive guide to phonetic pronunciation (so that pronunciation of words is apparent in their spelling)

Spelling that indicates the nature of the word immediately (noun, adjective, verb, etc.)

Universal systems of plurality and singularity.

There are many more if I could think of them right now. I should actually be saving these somewhere... Peter Deer (talk • contribs) 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed your notice from WP:UAA. There is nothing promotional about using his own name as his username. Your concerns about his signature should be brought up in the proper place. - Revolving Bugbear 00:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If not on the board about user names, then do you suggest I post it to the main general board? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, since it seems to be part of a content dispute, it may belong in dispute resolution process as part of the larger process. If you have concerns about it outside the dispute itself, try WP:ANI. - Revolving Bugbear 12:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you looking over this conversation for two reasons. You seem to be familiar with the user name policy, and none of the other admins there seem to know what to do about a controversial user name, and also because I think there is a problem with the procedure if there is a debate over whether or not a signature is acceptable when the policy states that controversial user names can't be used, equally applying to signatures, but my initial attempt to post it at WP:Usernames for administrator attention was declined because I raised the issue over a sig and not the actual user name. Did that make sense? So the debate that would usually go on at WP:UAA is now going on at WP:ANI only because it's a signature, but the policy applies equally to both. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have commented, as requested. I will continue to monitor the conversation.

As regards the UAA request, UAA exists for a very particular reason: to report usernames which indicate that the user "needs to be immediately blocked". This is mainly for GFDL reasons -- as the licensing requires that attribution be complete and public, we don't want history logs filled with entries like "Revision 12345 by The Guy Who F---ed Your Mother". While I agree with your assessment that the signature is problematic -- although not necessarily for the same reasons -- it is not that sort of situation.

As I said, I will continue to the monitor the conversation. If you have any further questions or concerns, related to this incident or not, I'll be glad to help.

Huh? First of all, you did not delete the category, you simply blanked it; the category remains, just without any content. Secondly, you did not apparently submit this for Categories for Discussion, so I have no idea why you are deleting it at all. Why did you ignore the procedure? Why do you want this deleted so badly that you can't discuss it with other editors? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AhUser:Jeff3000 has updated me on a discussion that I did not see for a similar category I made earlier. This one addresses some of the issues raised in the prior discussion, but not all. I apologize for my own ignorance, and I suggest that if you want it to be deleted, you post on CfD. As I told Jeff, I'll give my own take, but if it is deleted, I won't try to recreate it without some further support from the community at large. I hope this sounds like a fair approach. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting "Getting rid of" and deleting a category are not the same thing, as simply removing all of its members still leaves the category itself and it lends itself to being recreated. If it was nominated for CfD and actually deleted, there would be a deletion log and one would not repopulate it. This way, CfD works better for anyone who wants it deleted or anyone who wants it to not be deleted. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It would seem the big problem I have in this regard is it does not display on the page its inclusion in the category when linked secondarily to subcategories. The only indication would be if someone were to go to the category itself, which the pages included don't link to. One would have to specifically look up Manifestations of God, look into the Prophets of Islam subcategory, and then into the Muhammad category to even be aware of this distinction, or (even worse!) in the reverse order. Frankly it seems like this action taken is making it less informative in an encyclopedic sense, as by looking at the Muhammad categories area there is no overt indication of its inclusion in that category, which in accordance to your edits is now by proxy. You have been working very hard on this particular issue and I would like to know why this seems to be of such importance to you. Peter Deer (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That certainly seems fair but the Baha'i faith, while being a minority viewpoint, is not an insignificant viewpoint. Frankly, the Baha'i views of Jesus are noteworthy enough to be included on the page, I certainly don't see why the Baha'i category would be not noteworthy enough. Peter Deer (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the way you are organizing the categories is completely backward. While I disagree with the category, it passed CFD, and thus it should be organized in a way that consistent with categorization in Wikipedia. Also, there is no secondary source that clearly states that all the prophets of Islam and the Hebrew prophets have the station of a Manifestation of God, so I'll be adjusting those as well. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Allah-u-abha! I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping me with a project I've been working on. I was hoping to separate Shoghi Effendi's biographical page from the page on the Guardianship itself, to make a page specifically about the authority, responsibilities, and prerequisites for Guardianship, and go more in-depth on the position as opposed to the sole historical occupant (though I do of course intend to include Shoghi Effendi, but in more of a summary fashion with a Main article: Shoghi Effendi deal).

I was originally going to work on this with LambaJan but I haven't heard from him in quite a while. Frankly my main headaches in this regard are just that I still stumble a bit with wikiformatting, so it means I have to go back and pick apart whatever code I've used quite a bit.

I've been constructing it around pieces taken from the Shoghi Effendi article, but I am hoping to expand on it. Here's my Sandbox page on it, if you have any suggestions. In fact, I give you full permission to edit it yourself, and hopefully we can copyedit it and make for a smooth transition into two articles.

I've had a side project underway for some time. Well, it's finally cleared and I could use some more. Could you take a look at the project, and if you see something worth contributing please do so. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for you edits to the Bhagwan Swaminarayan Page, but since you don't know the actual facts, I had to undo it. I understand what you were trying to do and will help with doing so. Juthani1 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits you made today were a lot better. You may continue to do this. Thanks Juthani1 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you know your facts before you edit. I put the name Sahajanand Swami (the name on all official documents) and you changed it to his childhood name!! Moreover, removing referenced information as well as references is not acceptable. Its fine if you want to remove POV, but that does not mean you remove important information. I suggest you know your work before editing. If you go on removing refrenced information/references, I will be forced to take the matter up with administrators. That is something I would like to avoid. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to tell you that all the sources on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page are reliable. Most of those references have references on top of them too. Also, its a direct source which is backed by third parties. They are probably the best sources. Juthani1 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Before editing again, I would like it if you brought up the discussion on the talk page rather than reverting me over and over again. By trying to take out POV you are also distorting FACTS which is never a good thing. I do agree that there is POV and am workin on getting rid of it. I again ask you to start a new discussion rather that starting a editing war. It will be easier for both sides. I would appreciate it if you talk first and then edit if the regular editors on the article including me agree. We know the facts and we are working on finding POV. I would also appreciate it if you would reconsider the sources. They are original sources written by expertson the topic. All the work on the page is from these sources. Juthani1 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Will do that. I hope these discussions and working together put an end to the POV all together. It has been a problem for some time. Thanks Juthani1 19:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Alos, please take a look at the talk page before reverting. I have made it as POV free as I possibly can or the intro paragraphs. if you object any of my statements, put ti on the TALK PAGE before reverting or editting at all. Again, you are distorting the facts, not just POV, but FACTS when you edit. this should never be done since it is vandalism. I know it isn't intentional and I understand your concerns, but don't edit because you are distortng all of the facts. Also, I would like to know why the references which are reliable because they are written by experts in the field into the notes section and then marked everything as unreferenced. Please do respond. I'm trying not to get personal, but I'm ust doing what is best for the article. Thank you. Juthani1 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS iTS Crucial for making a few decisions!!! You can ask any Hindu and they will tell you the literal meaning of "Bhagwan" is god. Also, Swaminarayan is a Hindu sect. His official name is Sahajannd Swami. Again he was a sadhu (monk) and but later recognized as a GOD. "Swami" in gujarati refers to a sadhu or monk. He was definetly a saint and his offcal name was Sahajanand Swami. Bhagwan Swaminarayan later became his name after his death to prevent confusion. The articles name sould be changed to this (Sahajanand Swami) which was his offical name if you really want to change it, not Swaminarayan. There is absolutely no POV. Ican't ake that anymore clear. Second he s the diety of the modern fom of Hinduism known as the Swaminarayan Sampraday or Swaminarayan Sect not just Swaminarayan Sect. Saying just "a modern form of Hinduism" is not clear enough to any reader. No POV in that. It is a fact that he is the main diety in the Swaminarayan Sampraday (this is official). Again I can't make myself more clear. I will add more refs, but I still want to know why you moved the refs to the notes section? You are continuously DISTORTING THE FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the time. Please be as specific in your response as possible to anyhing you object. This has been copied to the Swaminarayan Talk Page Juthani1 23:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For proof that Bhagwan means God click on this link. Bhagwan and read. Juthani1 00:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove all the citations. Now for every place that needs a citation, I am adding two citations from different websites to varify. Juthani1 00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove any Citations PLease. Thye take forever to find and put in Its horrible to revert somethng when someone else has put in a lot of time putting them in. I'm adding a varity of Web Sources.

Swaminarayan isn't his name. A Swaminarayan is a follower od Sahajanand Swami. His name can be Sahajanand Swami, Lord Swaminarayan(though not prefered), or Bhagwan Swaminarayan. Officially his name is Sahajanand Swami, but Swaminarayan alone isn't his name. Thank you Juthani1tcs 02:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page of the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article. I would suggest first concluding the name of the article before warring with each other on use of the name in the article. Wikidās ॐ 17:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the thing above. I have also placed this on the talk page, but Williams refers to Lord Swaminarayan as Sahajanand Swami [1], so does the his signature on the Desh Vibag no Lekh which is officially recognized, and this name is more well known than Lord Swaminarayan or Swaminarayan which is a sect or a follower. I placed this here to add emphasis Thank you and please reply Juthani1tcs 20:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Oh click on the excerpt secton on the side. Juthani1tcs 20:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This section was reverted diff but it seems to be poorly sourced. What is the importance of it to the biography? Wikidās ॐ 12:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Its very important because it shows that various scriptures have said that Swaminarayan will take manifestation on earth, such as the bhagavad Gita, SkandaPurana, Vishnu Khanda, Srimad Bhagavatam, Shikshapatri etc. The sources of all quotes are mentioned, such as the Bhagavad Gita 4/7-8. Please note that this is not POV as it has no explanations, just quotes and english translations - which are self explanatory. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can translate any Sanskrit sloka in about 10 different ways, we should look at what secondary sources and translations of the religious leaders say about each particular selection. Some of the sources seems to be unreferenced and at least one or two secondary sources are needed in order to retain this section as relevant. I trust you, but WP:RS and WP:NOR is a strict procedure, and you can not just pull in a few slokas and prove something based on an unreliable sources or translations. I had made the same mistake before, and now I follow the scheme very rigidly, I know it takes time, but rules are the rules.Wikidās ॐ 12:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pl. state issues instead of reverting reverts. You removed important information such as date of construction, deities installed in the temple, name of person supervising construction etc. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)same with the Bhuj article. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you add unclear or citation needed tags wherever required inststead of removing things and I and other editors will try and solve the problem. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be edit war on some of the articles - I suggest to always explain your changes, especially when you want other people to agree with you. If you can say it in one line, use the edit summary; for longer explanations, use the talk page and add "see talk" to the edit summary.

Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. Im not taking any sides - I just want to make sure you understand each other.Wikidās ॐ 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you see the title of articles on the Pope (leader for Roman Catholics), it says Pope John Paul II, instead of his name, John Paul. Hence, the title of these articles too should contain the full title of the Acharya and just not his name only. BTW the full title of an Acharya is not just for eg. Tejendraprasadji, Acharya Tejendraprasadji, the full title is Sanatan Dharma Dhurandar Acharya Maharaj Shree Tejendraprasadji Maharaj. I hv given a ref. showing his full name on the article. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome to help out with Swaminarayan articles and your help is appreciated. I totally agree that the articles need to be simpler, more enclyclopedic and have translations of all Hindu centric words used in them for the articles to be rated well. Pl. remember that I am not the one to give him the title nor have I insisted on having the full title as the article title. Around The GlobeContact 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ros0709 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If we deleted everything that doesn't have a source, there would be nothing in Wikipedia. I understand WP:V and I understand WP:RS, but nowhere does it say "delete something that doesn't have a source." All that's needed is a "citation needed" tag and a discussion on the article's Talk page. If, after discussion, there is no source made available, then we can delete the material. But to just delete without prior discussion is tantamount to vandalism. Only BLP violations that are not cited require immediate deletion. There is no deadline. Corvus cornixtalk 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some of them do not pass notability, but the correct procedure to my eyes after a failing merge proposal would not be to merge them anyway but to place the notability tag on the articles instead. This gives other editors the chance to find sources, fix the articles, and give their feedback. Another option is to create an article like this: [2] Best, T0lk (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you find it acceptable to take unilateral action with no discussion following a failed merge proposal, threaten me with "pursue help from an administrator" while stating "It doesn't really matter how a few people voted". You obviously think you have some authority here you don't. I'll continue to revert these changes. T0lk (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cunado, Thank you for removing the ostentatious sub-heading "Facts" from this section. But the remaining bit above "Baha'i apologia" where it says that Baha'u'llah was following Islamic laws I still find troubling. Baha'u'llah was a leading Babi & it is irrational for him to have been following islamic laws. Quite frankly, it gives a strong impression of 'spin'.

The best thing is simply have one sub-heading: "Baha'is assert"... It says: There, take it or leave it, this is what Baha'is accept. I can live with that. And it gives you more freedom to write what you want. Regards, Thereisnohope (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question.

Sorry chaps, but wikipedia is not your personal battleground. You've both been warned, now you've both been blocked. While I'm here, let me note that asserting that X belongs in/out during an RFC doesn't really work William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cunado, i've made a wiki that's specifically designed to cater to baha'i; particularly as a method of collecting and disseminating good practice/learning. since i've seen you keeping your eyes on the baha'i articles, i thought you may be interested in this one. please take a look if you've got the willpower to see more wiki's... http://bahai.intodit.comk1-UK-Global (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Personally I would have left it - but I can see why you wiped it. My answer was less to the person concerned than to make it obvious how unjustified the remark was to anyone else reading the exchange. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what happened to the idea of collapsing the photo of Baha'u'llah on that page or at least placing a warning at the top ?

I scrolled down too far and was kicking myself when I got to the bottom of the page. Cheers. Nernst (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Revert.

I'd worked that one out but thanks for getting back to me. To be honest, this all goes well above my pay grade as a junior editor, so I think I'll step back, let alone get involved in the photo. I've managed to get firefox to block images and that stops me being in a bad mood for the rest of the day when I stumble on the image. Thanks again Nernst (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm wondering why you moved this article. Was there discussion of this in the Bahai wikiproject? (I see no discussion on the article's talk page.) The name from which you moved it had been discussed at WT:LGBT and consensus was found for it. Obviously, if another project disagrees, we need to discuss it together. LadyofShalott 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi thanks very much, I just think that the quality of some these articles should be improved so I endevour to use both non-Bahai and Bahai sources. However I do have a slight issue and are hoping that you can help me? I've just added some more refrences for Abdul Bahas marriage however it wont work? This is what i propose to be written:

As a young man speculation was rife amongst the Bahá’ís to whom `Abdu’l-Bahá would marry. Several young girls were seen as marriage prospects but `Abdu’l-Bahá seemed disinclined to marriage.[1] On March 8 1873, at the urging of his father,[2] the twenty-eight-year-old `Abdu’l-Bahá married Fátimih Nahrí of Isfahán (1847-1938) a twenty-five-year-old noblewoman.[3] Her father was Siyyid Muhammad-`Alí Nahrí of Isfahan an eminent Bahá’í of the city and prominent aristocrat."[4] Fátimih was bought from Persia to Acre, Israel after both Bahá’u’lláh and his wife Navváb expressed an interest in her to marry `Abdu’l-Bahá.[5][6] After a wearisome journey from Isfahán to Akka she finally arrived accompanied by her brother in 1872.[7] Four children survived adulthood all daughters; Ḍiyá'iyyih Khánum (mother of Shoghi Effendi) (d. 1951) Túbá Khánum (1880-1959) Rúḥá Khánum and Munavvar Khánum (d. 1971).[4]

The marriage of `Abdu’l-Bahá to one woman and his choice to remain monogamous[8], from advice of his father and his own wish,[9] legitimised the practice of monogamy to a people whom hitherto had regarded polygamy and a righteous way of life.[10]

If you could add this to the article and see the problem that would be great. Thank you --Lizzie1988 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate your response. You are correct that there is such a thing as overcategorization. I suppose the questions are 1.) Is (e.g.) burial in Israel a significant feature of Bahá'u'lláh's life and 2.) if not, is it a significant feature in anyone else's? If you really think these are contentious, this may be a good time to post on talk as a.) clearly, I think they belong, b.) they are technically accurate, and c.) they will probably be added again at some point. Regarding Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith, there was consensus on Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Jesus to leave them in these categories, as I recall. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the sub-article I added to Mahdi, and you gave reason that my addition was unreferenced. Obviously you deleted it without reading it. What I added was completely referenced. I added viewpoints of Maududi, Imadi, Kandhlwi and Allama Iqbal. I gave references of the books of these scholars.The books of these authors I refenced to are: Tajdeed-o-Ahyaa-e-Deen

Nazool-e-Mehdi-o-Maseeh

Mehdiviyyat nay Islam ko Kia Diya?

and Iqbal Nama (A colloection of Allama Iqbal's Letters)

I wonder why have you deleted my addition. If there is some descripency in my reference, please talk to me about it. Establish correct reason for deletion or revert your action. Suhayli (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My discussion was valid, nothing to do with soaps, and if so, it is your opinion. Please verify exactly which parts of my discussion violated which parts of wikipedia guidelines and try not to generalize. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How's that draft coming? I'm pausing on country write ups (though looking at wiki articles in other languages on articles for respective countries at least alittle - speaking of which, is that you on the spanish Wikipedia?) and have gathered some material for this article (so far looking at 1st trip - leaving Haifa through UK segments.) Very rough but progressing. Smkolins (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A preliminary draft of just the 1st segment of the trip is at User:Smkolins/Sandbox#First_Journey - material above and below isn't ready. And there are a couple points in that 1st segment needing info/refs or being dropped.Smkolins (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been redone again - now it's all at User:Smkolins/Sandbox and I'm wonder a couple things. I've tried various schemes on basic structure. So far I like the present one the best. What do you think? Also should I post as is, as is with flags for expanding sections mostly towards the bottom, or keep plugging away until the content is reasonably even and then post? Smkolins (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just so you know... adding or removing any actual information from an article should not be marked as a minor edit. Minor edits are only those such as changes to grammar, spelling, wikilinking that do not affect the content of the article. :) LadyofShalott 00:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese Bahá'í Summer Schools isn't notable enough. I've not ever tagged a page but also thought perhaps I'd seek out your skill in this. I've already tried to nicely inform the editor that the article should be considered as part of a broader article. Smkolins (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Bahá'í Faith in Portugal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Shadowjams (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that the Terraces really belong on the disambiguation page at all - but if they must be there then they do NOT need to be grouped with other headings leading to articles about varieties of the Baha'i Faith (a legitimate disambiguation goal). I must admit on reflection that where I have put them looks a little odd too - but this is really because the true "disamgiguation" function is so marginal. If the gardens were purely of concern to Baha'is then they would definitely NOT belong on this page at all - it is only because they are an internationally recognised treasure, enjoyed by so many people who are not Baha'is, or who are not even aware of the Faith at all in any other context, that they might scrape in. In this case the separate line is definitely called for, I think. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Cuñado. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Project 25, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages TDMA and FM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hi, I'd like to ask that everyone refrain from making undiscussed deletions and reversions on Death by burning. As the recent series of edits appear to be controversial, it would be most constructive to discuss any changes to the article on the talk page going forward. The current cycle of deletions and reversions is only going to lead to protracted edit warring. I'm going to restore the article to the version I contributed; if there are any changes needed, please discuss them first. I've also posted this notice on A35821361's talk page. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)